thomstark.net
heaven thinks it's funny
heaven thinks it's funny
Most Christians think the confession of the divinity of Jesus is a basic Christian axiom, as at home in the New Testament as it is in the creeds and the Church Fathers. To deny the divinity of Christ is to become a heretic: to cease being Christian. I come from the Stone-Campbell tradition. Very few adherents to my tradition realize that Barton Stone denied the divinity of Christ most of his Christian life, until in his old age (evinced in an unpublished letter) he became convinced that the notion of the divinity of Christ was a necessary Christian doctrine. Most Christians just assume that those who deny the divinity of Jesus are the heretics—like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (who believe that Jesus was a “god,” Little G, as in an angel, specifically Michael), or the Muslims (who deny that Jesus was God’s son because they affirm he was born of a virgin, and they think the idea of God’s son implies that God impregnated Mary). People who deny the divinity of Jesus are wackos who don’t understand the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Well, in point of fact, I’m going to show that most Christians have it backwards. The “orthodox” doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is the real heresy. The New Testament does not teach that Jesus is God. Jesus never claimed to be God, and no New Testament writer ever claimed he was God.
Now, a lot of you are already pissed off at me. A dozen verses just passed through your head like bullets through my head. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God! How do you refute that, asshole?” Well, I’ll get to that. This is the beginning of a series on the question of Jesus’ status as divine in the New Testament, in which I’ll deal with Paul’s letters, the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, Acts, the letter to the Hebrews, and the book of Revelation (plus anything else my readers think evinces New Testament teaching about the divinity of Jesus).
Now, I may be wrong, which is fine, but I think I can show that the New Testament does not portray Jesus as sharing the unique identity of Yahweh, being fully God, and all that orthodox screed. Some New Testament writers sometimes come fairly close, and some of the texts can be seen as ambiguous, but I intend to show that orthodox Christianity is reading the New Testament anachronistically through the lenses of later church councils, rather than through the eyes of first century apocalyptic Judaism which was, for all intents and purposes, monotheistic.
I’m going to ask my readers to suspend their disbelief for the time being. Let’s try to start with as clean a slate as possible. Imagine you’re a first century Jew who has never heard of “the Trinity” or of the idea of a God-Man (apart from in the “pagan” mythologies). How would you, as such a first century Jew, understand the claims of the New Testament about Jesus? That’s what we’re going to try to find out, but it will take some hard imaginative work on the part of those who are firmly committed to the idea that Jesus was and is God.
For the sake of saving everybody from unnecessary pain, I’ll also ask commenters to realize that although I am not the singular expert on the subject, this question is the subject of one of my Masters theses, and so I have done a great deal of research, and I’ve read most of the best books on all sides of the debate. So if you think I take this position because I haven’t thought of this, or haven’t read that, you’re probably wrong. In reality, I take the position I take because I’m an arrogant son-of-a-bitch who is out to prove himself, God and truth be damned in the process. No, that’s a joke. In reality reality, I take the position I take because I think it makes the most sense of the historical data. So, I add this caveat not to discourage commenters from engaging me or challenging me, but just to discourage commenters from assuming I must be glossing over the evidence for their position out of ignorance or willful rebellion against God. Let’s try to keep this conversation as charitable as possible.
That said, I’ll now ask you to list as many texts as you can which you believe indicate or possibly indicate evidence for New Testament teaching about Jesus’ divinity. Don’t leave any stones unturned. Don’t not mention a text just because you think it’s obvious. I want to try to make an argument that answers as many questions as possible. Ultimately, I don’t really care if I convince you that Jesus isn’t God and isn’t portrayed that way in the New Testament. I hope that I am able to convince you that people who deny the divinity of Jesus aren’t necessarily heretics, even if I fail to convince you that you’re a heretic. I don’t really care who’s a heretic and who’s not. I think that whole way of talking is just power-mongering. What I am interested in is reality, and I recognize that part of what constitutes reality is that human beings are constantly looking for ways to escape it. So I’m not a “believer” hater. I do, however, dislike people who use abstract theological constructs as a litmus test to determine who’s in and who’s out.
That said, let the discussion begin. Post your favorite proof-texts or proof-narratives for the divinity of Jesus. Then I’ll organize my responses and begin my argument. Below I will list the texts suggested to me in the comments, and update my list regularly so everybody can see clearly what texts have been suggested without having to read through all the comments:
January 31, 2010 - 11:18 AM
Thom,
If you want to organize in “chronological” order rather than canonical, the relevant Pauline texts would be a good place to start. The “Christ Hymn” of Philippians 2 would be particularly interesting. Also, I’ve just finished the class on the Gospel of Mark, so when you get to that point I might have observations to add.
Good luck in your undertaking. While later councils and church dogma are clearly anachronistic in many aspects of their NT reading, it still seems difficult to me not to see many indicators of high Christology in the New Testament, as Hurtado argues. So, though you know I’m glad to hear what you have to say, I’m already a bit skeptical.
January 31, 2010 - 11:22 AM
Thanks, Adam.
I’m not arguing against a high christology. I’m arguing that there is more than one kind of high christology.
Hurtado is my nemesis. He does a lot of good work, and much of it is usable. But then he obfuscates categories and displays double standards when comparing NT literature to other second temple texts.
Go ahead and give me a list of texts from Mark if you have the time.
January 31, 2010 - 11:34 AM
I’ve started a list of suggested texts at the end of the main body of this post. I will update the list as new texts are suggested to me. That way, you don’t all have to read through all the comments to know what has been suggested already.
January 31, 2010 - 11:41 AM
“I’m arguing that there is more than one kind of high christology.”
Good qualification. I will probably agree with you there.
Let’s see, in Mark you have the terminology “Son of God” (prologue 1:1, Centurion’s confession 15:39) and “Son of Man” terminology throughout. You have the baptism scene in chapter 1. The transfiguration scene in chapter 9. Jesus response in the Jewish trial in 14:61-62. There is also messiah/christ terminology throughout, which of course doesn’t directly argue for divinity. There are other features of the literary shape of the book that support a focus on the unfolding mystery of Jesus’ identity, at least in Thurston’s reading, which are not proof texts, but issues to consider.
January 31, 2010 - 11:42 AM
Awesome. Thanks, Adam.
January 31, 2010 - 1:22 PM
On the subject of Jesus claiming to be God I would point to Mark 14:60-63. If I were Caiaphas hearing Jesus claim to “come with the clouds of heaven” I would understand this to be a claim of divine equivalence, at least.
January 31, 2010 - 1:25 PM
Thanks, David. That one is easy. The Son of Man coming on the clouds is from Daniel 7, who is an agent of God, who is given honor, but not God himself. Caiaphas would have understood this without any controversy. What was controversial was that Jesus was saying the Son of Man would not look favorably upon Caiaphas when he came.
January 31, 2010 - 7:40 PM
Hello Thom, my brother David told me about your website.
How about Matt 26:63-65 and John 10:30-33? I’m not sure what you are trying to argue. If you are trying to argue christologically that Jesus as Son of God was not identical with God the Father then you are on firm ground (see for example 1 Cor 8:6).
January 31, 2010 - 7:58 PM
Thanks, Nathan. Matt 26:63-65 is a parallel to the Mark 14 passage David Kear brought up. See my response to him. Son of Man is not a divine title. The blasphemy was against the temple regime, which Caiaphas believed was tantamount to blasphemy against God.
The John 10 passage is a good one to deal with. I’ll add that to my list.
In answer to your question, no, I am not just arguing that Jesus the Son is to be distinguished from God the Father. I am arguing that the NT does not say that Jesus is the One True God, but that he is the One True God’s unique agent. It is an extensive argument, so bear with me. Unfortunately, however, 1 Cor 8:6 does not distinguish between God the Father and God the Son, as you suppose. I will be dealing with 1 Cor 8:6, but to give you a sneak peek: read back to verse 5. Gods and lords are distinguished. Gods are idols and lords are human rulers. Paul then says that there is only one God (i.e. Yahweh) and only one Lord (i.e. Jesus). This emphatically does not claim divinity for Jesus.
February 1, 2010 - 9:26 AM
*just tagging to get the emails for follow-up comments
*
February 1, 2010 - 9:51 AM
This seems like it will be quite the undertaking, but well worth the effort.
I’m currently enrolled in a class entitled “Christologies of the Second Testament.” We’ve begun our discussion by engaging the material included in the Hebrew bible concerning various “messiahs” and the expectations attendant to those messiahs. It’s amazing how, after looking at the data, one begins to notice the evolutionary nature of belief regarding “messiah.” We’ve become quite adept at harmonizing everything into one, somewhat coherent whole (although, I would argue it’s often incoherent). Jewish expectation of messiah runs the gamut, and to assume it would be any different regarding christological concerns would be quite arrogant on our part in 21st century America.
May this journey be fruitful. I’ll look forward to reading your thoughts.
February 1, 2010 - 10:13 AM
I agree with what scott said.
February 1, 2010 - 10:24 AM
I’m with Scott and Matthew.
February 1, 2010 - 10:26 AM
Actually, now I’m kind of over scott’s response. I’m more of an ira-ite now.
February 1, 2010 - 1:04 PM
>”he is the One True God’s unique agent”
I’m trying not to put words in your mouth Thom, but it sounds like you are trying to develop an argument for Arianism or Unitarianism, which as you pointed out, Barton W. Stone embraced a form of. The Arianism dispute was over whether Christ was of the “same essence” (homoousios) as the Father or of a “similar essence” (homoiousios), and whether he was the first-born of all creation or was eternally pre-existent with the Father. Street gangs in Constantinople would fight over these issues. At the Council of Nicea, Athanasius slapped Arius in the mouth for his blasphemy. The Nicene Creed with its language of “true God from true God”, “begotten, not made”, and “of one substance with the Father” excludes the Arian viewpoint. The Restoration movement, by rejecting the Nicene creed, re-opened this controversy.
February 1, 2010 - 1:06 PM
That whole dispute is anachronistic. Not interested in that. I’m interested in showing how the language about Jesus in the NT fits within the world of second temple apocalyptic Judaism. I will show that the claims made about Jesus were made about other figures during this period, and none of them constitute a claim that Jesus is fully divine.
February 1, 2010 - 6:08 PM
You know, if Arius’ response was to turn the other cheek, I think I will convert to Arianism.
I don’t think you’re going to find what you’re looking for in the texts overtly. This bit of our theology probably arose from people’s perceived experience of the Spirit and discernment. (I say perceived because I don’t want to pass judgment on those experiences either way.)
Any post that re-litigates the Nicene creed (which totally miss the point of Christ’s life and teachings, IMO) has my attention. Reading with interest.
February 1, 2010 - 7:58 PM
“I don’t think you’re going to find what you’re looking for in the texts overtly.”
I don’t understand the referent of this sentence.
“Any post that re-litigates the Nicene creed (which totally miss the point of Christ’s life and teachings, IMO) has my attention. Reading with interest.”
Yeah. You’ll be glad to see that I’ll be arguing that the exalted language ascribed to Jesus is less about his ontological nature in the NT than it is about his deeds and message.
February 1, 2010 - 7:59 PM
A point on methodology:
I’m wondering if focusing on the New Testament text alone, and separating other (equally relevant?) texts, such as patristic writings, adequately accounts for the relevant “historical data”.
February 1, 2010 - 8:06 PM
The patristic writings are from a later period. I am not seeking to understand what the patristic writings mean, but what the NT texts mean. Therefore, rather than looking to later texts to explicate their meaning and risk anachronism, I will seek to understand the NT texts in light of contemporary apocalyptic and other Jewish literature. That is proper historical methodology. It’s the same reason good scholars rightly avoid appealing to the Rabbis to find background for the Gospels, since the Rabbinic materials are later.
February 1, 2010 - 9:56 PM
Not only did Jesus fit the emerging archetype of a messianic figure within apocalypticism, but there are very few instances where the awaited ‘messiah’ had any sort of divine origin. There is some evidence in various early Jewish writings (i.e., 4 Ezra 11 & 12) of a heavenly, divine figure. This is not to say that this divine origin is similar to equality with God (as in trinitarian thought).
Not only that, but this particular instance, if I’m remembering correction, appears after Jesus. But, it appears quite early after Jesus and is the natural result of a more evolutionary approach to messiah-ism within Judaism. More evidence of the progression of thought in this area than proof/disproof of anything toward which you are working.
[Now that I've written all that, I realize it is quite unhelpful to your present endeavor.] It’s good information to have none the less
February 1, 2010 - 10:03 PM
There are even more parallels in the Similitudes of Enoch which is prior to Jesus, same century.
I’ll get to all that. People assume that the language of “pre-existence,” that the language of Jesus being present at and an agent in creation, that the language of Jesus sitting on God’s throne, that the language of Jesus being worshipped all mean that Jesus is being equated with Yahweh. I’ll show that this language does not indicate Jesus’ full-fledged divinity, since it is ascribed to other figures in the contemporary literature who are clearly not being equated with God (in a binitarian or trinitarian sense). I will also show that there is a lot of language in the NT that clearly distinguishes Jesus from God (not just from the Father), even while making the aforementioned claims about him.
February 1, 2010 - 10:05 PM
Also, some figures are actually given the name “God” or God’s personal names in this literature, while it is clear that they are not actually God. As I said, I’ll get to all that. Right now I’m just organizing my thoughts.
February 2, 2010 - 2:28 AM
Have you studied any 2nd temple epileptic Judaism?
February 2, 2010 - 3:20 AM
2nd temple epileptic Judaism is my specialty. It developed out of apocalyptic Judaism because all of the images and amalgamations of the apocalypses caused several readers to break out in epileptic fits. That is actually how the Holy Rolling got started.
February 2, 2010 - 3:26 AM
Take a vote: should I (a) organize my posts by ideas (e.g., Pre-Existence, Equality with God, Agency in Creation, etc.) and deal with all the texts that reflect a given idea in one post, or (b) organize my posts by author (e.g., Paul, Mark, John, John the Revelator, author of Hebrews, etc.)?
If I take the latter approach, I think there will be more overlap, because a lot of these ideas are found in many or most of the various biblical authors. If the former approach, there will be some overlap in the sense that some passages have more than one of these ideas in one place. But I will only be overlapping passages, not offering similar arguments again and again (or referring to arguments made in previous posts, making it necessary to read an earlier post in order to understand the current one).
February 2, 2010 - 6:39 AM
Thom, my vote is for organization plan (a).
February 2, 2010 - 3:25 PM
plan a
February 3, 2010 - 3:40 PM
This should be fun.
Plan (a).
I’m most interested in your rebuttal of John 10:30, not that I’m suggesting it’s bulletproof.
While you might be viewed as a heretic by a lot of your fellow Stone-Campbellites, I would like to point out that your critique of the creeds should be, at least in principle, applauded by those same critics.
What’s your other thesis topic, by the way? Or should I say, topics?
February 3, 2010 - 3:42 PM
I vote plan B for organizational purposes. That makes most sense in my head. But maybe if more than one passage or verse deals with the same thing as another one or many verses, you could just list those parallel verses out begin the explanation. Make sense?
February 3, 2010 - 3:54 PM
Stephen,
John 10 is easy. I look forward to treating John 5, 8 and 10, which all go together and claim pretty much the same thing.
You’re right that I’m only being a consistent Stone-Campbellite. Too bad they won’t see it that way.
My other thesis topic is a comparative liberation theology between Islam and Christianity.
February 3, 2010 - 4:18 PM
I must append my previous comment as I did not proofread and it comes off unintelligible at times. My goodness.
Correction for sentence 2:
Plan B makes the most sense to me.
Correction for sentence 3:
…You could just list those parallel verses out and then begin the explanation.
Thanks.
February 3, 2010 - 6:22 PM
I suppose you’ll be using Mk 10:17-18? It would make a lot of sense if you’re right.
February 3, 2010 - 6:27 PM
Yup. Thanks for reminding me.
February 4, 2010 - 12:17 PM
Tyler Payne, I hear you, and sympathize, but you’re outnumbered. Votes for plan A win the day.
February 4, 2010 - 12:21 PM
Now, how does this look for a tentative outline of the series? How do the categories strike you?
*Transfiguration
*Son of God / Son of Man
*Sharing God’s Throne / of Judgment
*Worship of Jesus
*Bearing and Acting in God’s Name
*On Being Identified as God
*Having Preexistence
*Wisdom Incarnate / Agency in Creation
*Hebrews 1 as a Test Case
*Scripture Against the Divinity of Jesus
*Conclusion
February 4, 2010 - 12:24 PM
just get on with it. I have to figure out plans for the afterlife.
February 4, 2010 - 12:26 PM
I dig it.
February 4, 2010 - 12:32 PM
It looks horrible. You need to start all over. Won’t work at all. You have no clue what you’re talking about. You’re work is in vain. Blah-blah.
~I just thought I’d go ahead and bring out the swords during the table of contents discussion. You know, just to keep you on your toes.~
February 4, 2010 - 12:33 PM
All right. Sorry, Matthew. I have to start over.
February 4, 2010 - 12:33 PM
Ten bucks on Thom.
February 4, 2010 - 12:34 PM
Ten bucks? You not interested in making real money?
February 4, 2010 - 12:36 PM
My usual bet is a dollar.
February 4, 2010 - 12:38 PM
Well you owe me two beers then.
February 4, 2010 - 12:38 PM
Haha…believe me…I have very little ammunition at this point.
I guess a sword doesn’t really have ammunition….
February 4, 2010 - 12:39 PM
Fifty.
February 4, 2010 - 12:40 PM
I think the odds just went down, so you’ll stand to make about the same.
February 4, 2010 - 12:41 PM
and if you can find two decent beers for less than $10 I might be calling for your divinity.
February 4, 2010 - 12:54 PM
Not that anybody cares but I put the Transfiguration before Son of God / Son of Man, just because Son of Man transitions nicely into sharing the divine throne.
February 4, 2010 - 12:55 PM
I was going to suggest that.
February 4, 2010 - 12:58 PM
Great minds speak up after the fact.
February 4, 2010 - 12:59 PM
I like to think of it as ex eventu brilliance.
February 4, 2010 - 6:36 PM
Ha. I didn’t catch that till just now. Anyway, Transfiguration is up.
February 4, 2010 - 7:28 PM
Just interjecting about the earlier comment that “Athanasius slapped Arius” at the Nicene Council. Would that be considered “History Fail” in interwebs vernacular? Either way, it’s false.
Additionally, many Arians did “sign off” on the Nicene Creed created in 325 because they merely had to define/use the words in the creed in their own way. If you were to read the creed Arius put together (I think the year before Nicea), you’d agree to it because the language could be understood in a number of ways.
Which I think is relevant to Thom’s overall discussion here. i.e. definition and usage of “Son of God,” or Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God.”
February 5, 2010 - 10:07 AM
While the passage from Mark that I suggested (10:17-18) will clearly contribute to your argument, I just realized that Matthew’s (awkward) emendation of that passage (19:16-17) requires an explanation. It appears that Matthew felt uncomfortable with Jesus apparently denying his equality with God.
Incidentally, I wonder if Jesus’ statement in Mark 10 figures into Mark’s messianic secret.
February 5, 2010 - 10:25 AM
Yes.
People often argue that that’s what Matthew is doing, usually as part of an argument that Jesus isn’t God in Mark. However, the variation can be explained by variation within oral tradition. Moreover, when Jesus says, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.” it is hardly conceivable that Matthew would have expected his audience to identify the “One” as anyone other than Yahweh. Nowhere else does Matthew give us an indication that Jesus should somehow be included in Yahweh’s identity, except as Yahweh’s messianic agent. If Matthew wants to make the revolutionary claim that Jesus is somehow to be identified AS God, we would expect to see some significant defense of such a radical claim.
I think you’ll see as the series progresses how considerations like this almost become irrelevant, given the contemporary literature.
If we are supposed to read Mark 10:17-18 as part of the messianic secret motif, Mark does not give us any indication. In that motif, Jesus always explicitly tells people to keep his identity a secret, or intentionally speaks cryptically (in parable), but then explains his words to insiders. That doesn’t occur here.
February 5, 2010 - 10:33 AM
That’s a very good question though! Keep those up.
February 5, 2010 - 2:07 PM
Very interesting stuff. I firmly believe in the divinity of Jesus (or the Jesus-ity of God), but I am often uncomfortable with the ways people use the texts to get there. I’m sure no one’s coming back to this post so this may be pointless or redundant, but let me also say something to any who may be reading this and thinking, “This doctrine is at the very center of our faith so this series is blasphemous and we shouldn’t even entertain the thought.” (Or those of you who want to engage but are afraid that it will make it seem like you don’t believe or take seriously the doctrine Thom is questioning.)
ON THE CONTRARY, if indeed this is a central doctrine for us, we should be all the more willing to engage arguments that might undercut it (and in the process, either revise our beliefs or be more ready to defend them). This is all the more true because Thom is basing his arguments on Scripture. (And double *all the more* true for those of us in the RM, where Scripture does not bend to tradition. And to stop one more potential excuse – of course Scripture must be read through tradition, but that doesn’t mean tradition shouldn’t be questioned. Duh, right?)
You can disagree with Thom’s exegesis. He wants you to do just that! (and not for arguing’s sake, but for the sake of the argument). I will at times, and I hope I have the patience and commitment to follow through on the arguments.
Anyhow, this is my plea for Thom to be taken seriously by those of us who consider ourselves teachers, even if we end up strongly disagreeing (as I am confident I will, though it would be wrong/cheating to be certain at this point) – heck, even if we end up thinking Thom is a heretic.
February 5, 2010 - 2:14 PM
Thanks for that, DeFaz.
FTR: The divinity of Jesus and the Jesusity of God are not at all the same thing. The former is usually an ontological statement about Jesus, the latter is a statement about the character of God. God can have Jesusity without Jesus being God. The NT would certainly affirm the Jesusity of God.
February 6, 2010 - 1:06 PM
Hi, Thom.
I incidentally discovered more ammunition for you today: “pantokrator” is used nine times in Revelation, all exclusively of God the Father.
Stephen
February 6, 2010 - 2:40 PM
Thanks, Stephen. I have now noted that on the Worship post in the comments.
August 13, 2010 - 7:31 AM
I’m a newcome observer of this debate. Keen to read on and see how it has unfolded/is unfolding.(?)
August 13, 2010 - 12:42 PM
Thanks for taking time to read here, Ruben.